Just for discussion and fantasy material, not that I can buy either of them anytime soon. But which one, and why?
Also, fiberglass, kevlar or carbon (if price was not an issue)?
Also, what the h*&%# is the difference between the Seaward Luna and the Seaward Cosma? They appear to be the same boat to me based on dimensions, and other stats.
Thanks for playing.
Emma
"which one, and why?"
Well, that really depends on who it’s for, and what they want to do with it.
Wihle both are good general use options, these are still different enough designs that a simple needs assessment should quickly make the determination - unless you’re doing the sort of paddling where anything works about as well (most folks, really) - but beyond that I can’t really think of much the Luna would be better at just looking at it online (beside fit/feel differences only you can assess for yourself)…
For layup I would sort of avoid trying to compare on even footing as each company uses those materials differently with somewhat different results (upside being both Seaward and QCC do really good work). If money is no object, least weight is pretty nice, as is hull stiffness - so carbon/blends…
What I intend to do with it
(in my fantasy)…
I mostly paddle inland lakes, fairly calm with some wind and mild chop & boat wakes. But I just got back from an incredible coastal trip down south which is what inspired me to think big. Whoa… those waves and swells were wild! But fun! And I stayed upright (was glad not to have to test my newly-found roll to see if it’s “bombproof”… and I doubt it is). I imagine that the Seaward would be friendlier to the big water (not sure, tho) and the QCC would be a bullet on the inland lakes.
Cosma
is a multichine hull. Luna is a round chine. I have owned both and I prefer the Luna. The construction on the Seawards is superior to the QCC boats but the design is more sophisticated on the QCC. I also owned a 600x QCC which was a fairly fast hull. Both companies have seating that requires modifications for me. Not a big deal.
Follow up question
So that’s the difference! Thank you, I knew there had to be something significant but I didn’t notice that in the descriptions until you mentioned it; I was just looking at dimensions.
Follow up question: In what conditions would a multi-chine be preferable to a rounded hull, and vice versa?
I need to learn more about hull design.
Groovy, when you say QCC is
"more sophisticated" in design, what do you mean? In what way? (Say more, please?)
John Winters
does all the designs for QCC and some for Swift. I am not sure who designs for Seaward but the boats are more commonly patterned after NW style which usually requires a rudder. The waterline on the QCC is longer as was the original Luna prior to modification about 10 years ago. Nimbus makes a nice boat similar to the Luna called the Solander with a longer waterline. remember these are all opinions and paddlers are very opinionated. The multichine Cosma is closest to the Necky Elaho in design. Both Cosma and Luna weathercock a bit and need the rudder. Greyak could address the QCC designs better than myself.
hard chine
boats have a greater initial stability, they feel less “tippy”. And they are very good at carved turns.
"boats have a greater initial stability"
Have you ever paddled a Foster Silhouette? Or a Rumour?
Some hard chine boats have higher initial stability than some soft chine boats. Some soft chine boats, such as an OI, have greater initial stability than some hard chine boats, such as a Silhouette.
Hard or soft chining alone has little to do with the initial stability of a boat.
I am thinking that Larryn intended
for his comment to assume the same beam, because obviously a narrower beam could feel tippier than a wider one regardless of hull design. I said “could”.
Given the same beam, I think his comment is probably true. Any dissenters? I’m open to being educated.
Thanks for the comments.
The thing that bothers me
in theory about the QCC’s (I’ve never paddled one) is, it’s great that they have the long waterline and I’m sure that makes them faster and track better. But they look like they have minimal rocker. I’ve always wondered if something like the Cosma or Luna would work better on the open ocean or big waves than the QCC, because of the rocker.
I’d like it if someone could address that. How important is rocker, really, on big gnarly water?
600/700/10x* have ample rocker
Point here is simple: DO NOT judge a kayak based on online photos or posted comments from people who do not own these kayaks, OR make assumptions based on any ONE design feature. Also, do not confuse rocker (keel curvature) with upswept ends/overhangs/bow rake. These features can make boats look curvier than they are and vice versa.
-
- I cannot say regarding 300/400/500 as these are older Swift era designs made more for lake than sea and may indeed have less rocker (and even if so the rocker would be the “right” amount for those designs - and their other parameters - and the design intent of those models).
For info on the 10x, get in touch with JackL who posts here regularly. His wife was involved with the design and she likely has more miles on a 10x than anyone.
Rocker is just one of multiple design parameters that all work together. Looking at (or imagining things about) rocker alone is about as informative relative to handling as sharpness of chines. Both tell you NOTHING useful by themselves.
The Seawards may or may not be more maneuverable, but that will have more to do with LWL, L/W ratio, hull cross sectional shapes, waterplane area, block coefficient, etc, etc… Not to mention YOU and how you turn a kayak (flat vs a little heel vs strongly edged, the strokes used, and your proficiency with them (comfort level/experience in each hull, etc, etc, etc…).
Going into the design stuff deeper here, for your purposes, will just add to any confusion. If you have a few years to kill, and this Naval Engineering stuff interests you, do a lot of research on hull design. Many good books/articles on the subject. Play around with some design and hydrostatics programs. Along the way be sure to paddle dozens of kayaks in a wide range of conditions. Then, some of these things may begin to make sense in ways that would let you make some rough estimations of handling before running detailed numbers - and doing the all important butt test (we are all different, and every kayak will be different for each of us).
The only thing that really matters is you - and how a kayak feels to you - so see what you can do to test paddle both. QCC can point you to owners near you (most happy to let folks try them). Seaward may be able to do same. Might not be all than many around though. Might need to travel.
On a practical note: QCC is more in your region, and is having a decent sale right now…
PS - as far as I know, while the 10x is derived from Mr. Winter’s work on the other kayask in the family, it is technically not a true 100% Winters design and I think QCC took some liberties here (as they have with cockpit location on the Q700 over the years). Not a problem, and I’ve never seen anything but praise for the 10x - just giving Mr. Winter’s his due.
- I cannot say regarding 300/400/500 as these are older Swift era designs made more for lake than sea and may indeed have less rocker (and even if so the rocker would be the “right” amount for those designs - and their other parameters - and the design intent of those models).
If you can recommend a good
book on hull design, I actually would like to read more about it, in depth.
As far as making judgements based on online photos, I have no choice but to do so right now, which is why I plainly admitted it, and asked for others’ input. I did so, knowing that often times online info is deceptive or downright erroneous. I appreciate your insights, and I agree that upswept bows can make a kayak look like it has more rocker than it really does.
I also agree that it’s difficult to isolate ONE design parameter and then make comparisons with other boats, because as you said, there are multi-elements all working together. On the other hand, I think it’s by trying to isolate a parameter that you can learn most about that specific feature.
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Not the always the case
Some narrower boats have more primary than some wider boats - e.g. Chatham 18 and Nordkapp LV.
The flatness of the bottom of the hull and where volume is carried in the hull has more impact on primary than hard or soft chine.
I would get the QCC
in kevlar. QCC makes a nice boat. I have a 700X, and it is a rocket in the water, easy paddling, carries quite a bit too. Wish I had gotten Kevlar instead of fiberglass though, just for the extra strength
QCC 600X
600X or 700X, depending on which fits you. I thought my 600X was ridiculously tippy when I first got in it. I quickly realized that it’s not at all tippy. It’s simply responsive to small inputs instead of the much larger inputs I needed to get my Wildy Tsunami to respond. Fast. Turns quickly with no skeg, or won’t turn at all with skeg fully deployed. A little bit of skeg in a rear quartering wind is all it needs to track straight. I’ve had green water completely over the deck, and the bow slamming down with a hollow boom off wave crests. No drama, just fun. 16’ 8" with 16’ 5" waterline length. Compare the waterline length to much longer boats and you’ll find the 600X is longer than some 18’ boats. Mine is kevlar/carbon layup. 42 lbs.
QCC is amazing. If you don’t like the boat, send it back at their expense.